[lamford]

---

Lead ♦2; Matchpoints; NS+1370.

"I think we would have defeated the last hand if you had cashed your ace of trumps before I revoked," said South, the club's equivalent of the Rueful Rabbit, at a local club recently. "Play this one, please," said North, and South bid "Stop, 2NT", alerted by his partner. That alert came as a surprise to South, who had not seen the 1♥ bid. Over his partner's 3D, he thought he was supposed to select his LAs using 16B, with no 75A to worry about this time, as he had not forgotten the system, but had just overlooked the opening bid.

He therefore tried 3NT - he had a heart stop after all, and was surprised again when his partner jumped to 6D. Still he must have long diamonds and RR had AKx of those so he put the dummy down. He had long perceived the advantage of being dummy, and indeed North had no trouble with the play, picking up both black queens which were marked from the opening bid. He could not even misguess trumps, as East did not have ♦JTx.

East, a chap who looks like SB, was unhappy. He thought South had taken advantage of the UI which told him that he had not seen the opening bid, and he had an obligation to continue not to see it, and to bid 3H. That might have led to a different contract, perhaps 5D+1 by North which would have been a bottom. How do you rule?

[barmar]

I'm with SB.

In the US legal system, there's a policy known as "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the police or prosecution are forbidden from using a particular piece of evidence, any additional evidence they discover as a consequence of it is also forbidden. I think it's an appropriate policy in adjudicating UI issues as well. If a player notices on his own that he misbid, he can try to recover; but if the discovery is prompted by UI, 73C prohibits him from using it.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-May-02, 09:41, said:

I'm with SB.

In the US legal system, there's a policy known as "fruit of the poisonous tree". If the police or prosecution are forbidden from using a particular piece of evidence, any additional evidence they discover as a consequence of it is also forbidden. I think it's an appropriate policy in adjudicating UI issues as well. If a player notices on his own that he misbid, he can try to recover; but if the discovery is prompted by UI, 73C prohibits him from using it.

There is a school of thought that the actual auction is always AI. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, however.

[RMB1]

There was a case at Brighton (2/3 years ago) where dealer intended to bid 1♠ but put 1NT on the table. Partner announced the range, which told opener that he had mis-pulled but he did attempt to correct to 1♠. So the auction continued, uncontested, with a 2♦ response. The question was, was the 1NT bid [un]authorized to opener? Must he treat 2♦ as natural, not a transfer?

I hope I have got this right: the consensus was that 1NT was unauthorized to the player that bid it and bidding 2♥ was using UI.

[barmar]

My feeling is that when a player misbids, it doesn't matter WHY he misbid -- forgetting the system, not seeing the auction correctly, missorting his cards, etc. If he discovers the mistake on his own (either spontaneously, or because of an "impossible" subsequent auction), it's OK; if he discovers it as a result of UI, he must continue to bid based on his original premise. In past discussions we'd specifically mentioned "system forgets", but I believe it applies to any misunderstanding that results in misbidding.

Yes, the auction is AI, but there are many situations where UI precludes using some AI, and I believe this is one of them.

[gordontd]

 RMB1, on 2013-May-02, 09:59, said:

There was a case at Brighton (2/3 years ago) where dealer intended to bid 1♠ but put 1NT on the table. Partner announced the range, which told opener that he had mis-pulled but he did attempt to correct to 1♠. So the auction continued, uncontested, with a 2♦ response. The question was, was the 1NT bid [un]authorized to opener? Must he treat 2♦ as natural, not a transfer?

I hope I have got this right: the consensus was that 1NT was unauthorized to the player that bid it and bidding 2♥ was using UI.

Yes, that's correct. The only way in which he can use the knowledge provided by his partner's announcement is in order to change his mistaken call under L25A.

It was as a consequence of the discussions that arose out of this that the WBF issued the footnote to L25A in 2011.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-May-02, 10:00, said:

Yes, the auction is AI, but there are many situations where UI precludes using some AI, and I believe this is one of them.

Are you saying that he is not allowed to interpret 3D as a transfer into the opponent's suit, and that he has to continue to believe the auction has gone (Pass)-2NT-(Pass)-3D-(Pass) even though it has not?

I think he is allowed to believe that he overcalled 1H with 2NT (20-22 balanced), and his partner has now transferred into the opponent's suit.

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2013-May-02, 09:59, said:

Partner announced the range, which told opener that he had mis-pulled but he did attempt to correct to 1♠.

Was he allowed to correct it to 1♠? If so, I do not understand the issue.

[WellSpyder]

 lamford, on 2013-May-02, 10:26, said:

Was he allowed to correct it to 1♠? If so, I do not understand the issue.

I wonder whether there is a "not" missing from Robin's explanation of what happened?

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-May-02, 10:20, said:

I think he is allowed to believe that he overcalled 1H with 2NT (20-22 balanced), and his partner has now transferred into the opponent's suit.

This is surely the one option which makes no sense. At no point did he think that (1♥) 2NT 3♦ is a "transfer to opponents' suit", and it clearly is not in the partnership methods, so I don't see any interpretation of 16B by which LAs could be determined on that basis.

(As for Robin's post, I also assumed "but he did" was a typo for "but he did not", since "but" is an odd word to use otherwise.)

[nige1]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-May-02, 10:29, said:

I wonder whether there is a "not" missing from Robin's explanation of what happened?

Yes. rather like "interpreting" Bridge laws
I was an opponent and the player who thought he'd opened 1♠ did NOT change his call. The auction was something like:
1N "announced range"(Pass) 2♦ (Pass)
2♥

[TylerE]

For me, with my 2/1 partner this is a totally plausible auction for us, ignoring the alert and the 1♥ opening.

2NT - strong
3♦ - xfer, GF
3NT - exactly 2♥

N, presumably having no UI, can now bid 6♦.

[iviehoff]

 lamford, on 2013-May-02, 08:51, said:

"I think we would have defeated the last hand if you had cashed your ace of trumps before I revoked,"

Thank you for that, I had a really good laugh.

I think the best way of describing the restriction of UI which wakes you up is that you are not allowed to recover from whatever misapprehension you are under. Misapprehensions usually relate to something you are ordinarily permitted to know, so it is irrelevant to say that the matter is AI.

The player was never under the misapprehension that a 2N overcall is strong with transfer responses, so that cannot possibly be the thing he is required to continue thinking.

[c_corgi]

If South had said, before the alert: "Oops! I didn't see the 1 heart opening." would it still be UI to him?

[barmar]

 c_corgi, on 2013-May-02, 15:12, said:

If South had said, before the alert: "Oops! I didn't see the 1 heart opening." would it still be UI to him?

I don't think so. Like I said, if he notices the error without potential assistance from UI, he's entitled to it. But his statement would be UI to North, of course.

I just realized that what I just said is not precisely what I said earlier. Earlier I said "If he discovers it as a result of UI", but this time I said "potential assistance from UI". As a general rule, when a player is in possession of UI, the Laws require us to proceed as if he used it, even if he didn't actually. That's why "I was always going to..." is not a valid way out of the restrictions imposed by UI. The Laws don't speak of a player using UI, just being in receipt of it.

This case where the player blurts out his mistake before the UI is transmitted is really of a special case. Normally there's no explicity way to know when a player learns something, and the UI laws essentially require us to rule as if he learned it after the UI, and then abide by those restrictions. Players aren't supposed to talk about their thought processes, but if they do we can make use of it in certain cases.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-May-02, 17:07, said:

I don't think so. Like I said, if he notices the error without potential assistance from UI, he's entitled to it. But his statement would be UI to North, of course.

This seems a bit unfair to people who know you aren't allowed to blurt things out.

[iviehoff]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-02, 17:11, said:

This seems a bit unfair to people who know you aren't allowed to blurt things out.

I think the law protects against that. It may just happen that the disadvantage of the UI restriction to your partner which will arise from the blurting is worse than the disadvantage of the UI restriction you will suffer if you don't. But if it isn't, Law 23 should usually make sure you don't profit. The blurting is an irregularity - illegal communication - and often will be one which could well see will work to your advantage (by relieving you from that UI restriction), so I think the application of Law 23 is usually going to be straightforward. So in theory no profit from blurting. How often you'll have a TD able to see his way through such an arcane argument, I don't know. A fine to remind you of the laws on illegal communication would make things more certain.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-May-02, 17:07, said:

I just realized that what I just said is not precisely what I said earlier. Earlier I said "If he discovers it as a result of UI", but this time I said "potential assistance from UI". As a general rule, when a player is in possession of UI, the Laws require us to proceed as if he used it, even if he didn't actually. That's why "I was always going to..." is not a valid way out of the restrictions imposed by UI. The Laws don't speak of a player using UI, just being in receipt of it.

The problem with that approach is that when we get to South's second bid, he will see the 1♥ on his right, next to a pass, and will know that he has made a mistake; even with a brain the size of RR's. The auction is AI to him, and he can see that he made a poor bid over 1♥. He is allowed to work out that his partner's 3♦ bid is preference for diamonds over clubs, because the auction tells him that without the UI. We are back to Law 16B, except this time 3♥ would not be an LA in anybody's book. 3NT and Pass are, and it is hard to argue that one is suggested over the other, as both are misdecriptions of the hand.

I agree, on reflection, that he is not obliged to think he overcalled a natural 2NT. Therefore, I do not think that SB gets any redress this time.

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-May-02, 10:29, said:

I wonder whether there is a "not" missing from Robin's explanation of what happened?

Indeed, Robin seems to have a problem with "nots":

 RMB1, on 2012-February-03, 11:43, said:

Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-02, 17:11, said:

This seems a bit unfair to people who know you aren't allowed to blurt things out.

"Bridge at the Enigma Club" had an interesting idea about this. The computer that manages the auction recognizes situations where UI is likely to be transmitted, and preemptively prompts the player for their plan. That way it can confirm the "I was always going to..." claim, but the plan isn't broadcast to the other players.